Subscribe To

Wednesday, 31 December 2014

Denis
Pushilin, a pro-separatist leader in southeast Ukraine, has said the
Ukraine
faces a ‘second Chornobyl’ due to Ukraine’s decision to use
nuclear fuel supplied by Westinghouse for its Soviet-built nuclear
power plants.

He
said radiation has increased to 14 times the acceptable norm at the
Zaporizhia nuclear plant. This is the largest nuclear power plant in
Europe, and the fifth largest in the world.

The
Russian news agency Interfax reported that in a statement on December
28, Pushilin said Ukraine faces “a second Chornobyl” due to
Kyiv’s decision to use nuclear fuel supplied by Westinghouse — a
reference to the deadly 1986 nuclear power plant accident that spead
radioactivity over parts of Europe.

Pushilin
said that “currently the level of radiation is 14 times higher than
the acceptable norm” in the area around the Zaporizhzhya plant and
that the problem started November 28 “after an unsuccessful attempt
to replace rods in the Russian-made third block (reactor) with the
product of the American company Western house.”

According
to authorities, Unit 3 of the Zaporizhia plant suffered a short
circuit on Nov. 28, and theis reactor was shut down for a week.
Pushilin alleges that the reason for the shutdown was the
unsuccessful replacement of Russian-made fuel rods with Westinghouse
fuel rods.

Radiation
levels were at 5.05 mSv/yr. The criterion for evacuation in Ukraine
from Chernobyl was 5 mSv/yr.

This
comes out to 0.58 μSv/hr. Presumably this does not include
background radiation. According to the plant operator’s website,
background radiation at the plant is 0.10 μSv/hr, which gives a 0.68
μSv/hr dose.

This
is equivalent to the less contaminated parts of Fukushima prefecture.
It might be around half the amount of Fukushima City. But it seems to
be increasing.

Ukraine’s
switch to the use of upgraded nuclear fuel from the United States at
its nuclear power plants (NPP), built in the Soviet times, could
threaten safety both at the domestic level and in Europe as well, the
Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement on Tuesday.

“Moscow
was somehow alarmed as Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseny Yatsenyuk
announced on December 30 the signing of an agreement with US company
Westinghouse concerning nuclear fuel supplies for Ukrainian nuclear
power plants,” the ministry said in its statement…

“It
seems that the Chernobyl tragedy did not teach Kiev authorities any
lessons concerning a scientifically feasible approach to the
[peaceful] use of nuclear energy,” the Russian ministry said in its
statement. “In might be in fact, that the nuclear safety is
sacrificed for the sake of political ambitions or, even more, other
tangible interests.”…

“Consequences
of possible accidents and meltdowns [at nuclear power plants] will be
in the full responsibility of the Ukrainian authorities and US
suppliers of [nuclear] fuel,” the statement dded.

Safety
concerns regarding Ukraine’s switch to the US supplied nuclear fuel
were repeatedly voiced by Russian experts and some officials,
including by Sergey Kiriyenko, the head of Russian state-run nuclear
corporation Rosatom.

So
it seems that all 6 reactors will have their fuel rods replaced with
Westinghouse fuel at some point. Crimea is nearby Zaporizhia, and it
is now part of Russia. Irradiation of Russian citizens, especially
due to a switch in fuel supplier from Russia to Westinghouse, would
add even more tension to the Ukraine crisis, which is already
threatening to lead to global nuclear war.

The
reason Ukraine is switching to Westinghouse fuel is political. Russia
has already agreed to supply its fuel to Ukraine, and there are
no sanctions involved. Ukraine has become a vassal state to the West
after the coup earlier this year. It is being used as a pawn, and a
place to deploy missiles near the Russian border, in an encirclement
strategy by the US and NATO.

In
2012, during a routine inspection, Energoatom reported that
Westinghouse’s assemblies had structural damage. It had to swap
those for Russian-made fuel assemblies, which the utility estimated
cost it $170 million.

After
a suit threatened by Energoatom, Westinghouse tried to make good on
its deal and produced modified fuel rods for the Russian built
VVER-440 reactors. These, too, were found defective.

Indeed,
Westinghouse has not fared well in other markets dominated by Soviet
built reactors. In 2000, it began supplying nuclear fuel to CEZ, a
Czech utility, for two reactors that it helped to modify at CEZ’s
Temelin station. In 2009, Russian company TVEL took that business
away.

During
a core reload in 2012 on the unit №2 and №3 YUNPP the mechanical
damages of TVS-W FAs have been found. Damages have been found at
visual inspection of FAs. The some of spacer grids has been damaged.
Breakages of SG fragments, squeeze, deformation of petals and an
attrition have been detected. Two FAs are recognised as an unsuitable
to the further operation, some FAs can be use in a core only after
repair, a part of FAs it is ready to operation one cycle and then
obligatory inspection at the stand of repair and inspection. The
reasons of problems at a core reload and of defects of FAs: −
Lacks of a design of the top nozzle of the FA. The FAs are placing
«one on another». − Insufficient mechanical strength of SGs to
radial and axial efforts. − Lacks of a design of the bottom
nozzle of the FAs. Corners, sharp edges increase probability of FAs
damage at a core reload. − Bending of FAs. − Loading in
transitive cycles of FAs of type TVSA for which the bending above
design values and at the same time high rigidity of a skeleton also
is typical. (Maximum design value of a FA bend is 7 mm. Maximum
measurements value of blend is 29 mm [ZNPP, 7])…

The
rods don’t fit right, lack the features needed for the Soviet-era
equipment, and the boric acid formulas don’t work.

“Only
one aspect is important: that the nuclear industry has absolute
security priority,” Kiriyenko said. “If the nuclear industry
begins to make decisions for political reasons, this already poses a
threat.,” Kiriyenko said in April and voiced the same opinion two
days ago addressing the 58th General Conference of the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Austria’s Vienna…

Sergei
Kondratyev, a senior expert with the Russian Institute for Energy and
Finance, voiced concern over the sharp switch from Russian-to
US-produced nuclear fuel as it could pose a threat to the safety of
Ukrainian nuclear power plants, which were built in the Soviet Union
era.

In
an interview with ITAR-TASS Kondratyev said that Ukraine’s decision
to switch to the US-produced upgraded nuclear fuel did not take into
account technical characteristics and peculiarities of the
Soviet-built NPPs.

“The
current management of Ukraine’s Energoatom sets the main task to
significantly reduce fuel purchases from Russia and switch to the US
fuel,” he said. “However, such sharp alternation of nuclear fuel
use could result in safety drop at the exploited nuclear power plants
and this is definitely unacceptable.” (link)

BREAKING:
Westinghouse Electric Corporation uses Ukraine as a testing ground
for nuclear tests of their products

According
to the HSCIC, 50 percent of women and 43 percent of men are taking
specialised drugs to combat physical and mental illnesses, with
cholesterol-lowering statins and anti-depressants being among the
most common drugs taken by Bits.

According
to the HSE report, doctors issued on average 18.7 prescriptions per
person in England during 2013, costing the NHS more than £15bn per
year.

While
the report does not count issuing of contraceptives and anti-smoking
medication, nearly a third of the prescriptions were related to
regulating blood pressure, with more than 65 million being issued in
one year alone.

Additionally,
more than one in 10 women said they were taking medication to do with
mental health issues, with 17 percent of women from low income
backgrounds taking anti-depressants, compared to 7 percent of women
in higher income brackets.

“It's
well known that rates of depression are much higher among women than
men, so I am not surprised to see that antidepressant use follows the
same pattern in this study,” Dr
Sarah Jackson, a professor at University College London told the BBC.

“People
with depression are less likely to be in regular employment, and
people who are unemployed or in low paid jobs are more likely to have
depression.”

The
paper also found that overweight and obese people were more likely to
need prescription medication, while more than half of people who were
‘severely obese’ took at least one prescribed drugs, and a third
took at least three types of special medication.

Commenting
on these findings, Sue Faulding, a pharmacist and programmes manager
at the HSCIC said: “Obesity is often associated with high
cholesterol, high blood pressure, joint pain and depression.”

Earlier
this week, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency
warned that a record number of Britons were purchasing illicit
medication through social media channels, and that the UK had become
a ‘phenomenal market’ for selling these types of medication.

According
to the MHRA, thousands of sexual enhancement chemicals, sleeping
pills and weight loss medication was being sold through the black
market, with the UK among the most lucrative countries for
distributors.

By any measure 2014 has been a truly historic year which saw huge, I would say, even tectonic developments. This year ends in very high instability, and the future looks hard to guess. I don't think that anybody can confidently predict what might happen next year. So what I propose to do today is something far more modest. I want to look into some of the key events of 2014 and think of them as vectors with a specific direction and magnitude. I want to look in which direction a number of key actors (countries) "moved" this year and with what degree of intensity. Then I want to see whether it is likely that they will change course or determination. Then adding up all the "vectors" of these key actors (countries) I want to make a calculation and see what resulting vector we will obtain for the next year. Considering the large number of "unknown unknowns" (to quote Rumsfeld) this exercise will not result in any kind of real prediction, but my hope is that it will prove a useful analytical reference.The main event and the main actors

A comprehensive analysis of 2014 should include most major countries on the planet, but this would be too complicated and, ultimately, useless. I think that it is indisputable that the main event of 2014 has been the war in the Ukraine. This crisis not only overshadowed the still ongoing Anglo-Zionist attack on Syria, but it pitted the world's only two nuclear superpowers (Russia and the USA) directly against each other. And while some faraway countries did have a minor impact on the Ukrainian crisis, especially the BRICS, I don't think that a detailed discussion of South African or Brazilian politics would contribute much. There is a short list of key actors whose role warrants a full analysis. They are:

The USA

The Ukrainian Junta

The Novorussians (DNR+LNR)

Russia

The EU

NATO

China

I submit that these seven actors account for 99.99% of the events in the Ukraine and that an analysis of the stance of each one of them is crucial. So let's take them one by one:

1 - The USA

Of all the actors in this crisis, the USA is by far the most consistent and coherent one. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland were very clear about US objectives in the Ukraine:

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Without Ukraine Russia ceases to be empire, while with Ukraine - bought off first and subdued afterwards, it automatically turns into empire…(...) the new world order under the hegemony of the United States is created against Russia and on the fragments of Russia. Ukraine is the Western outpost to prevent the recreation of the Soviet Union.Hillary Clinton: There is a move to re-Sovietise the region (...) It’s not going to be called that. It’s going to be called a customs union, it will be called Eurasian Union and all of that, (...) But let's make no mistake about it. We know what the goal is and we are trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent it.Victoria Nuland: F**k the EU!

Between the three, these senior US "deep-staters" have clearly and unambiguously defined the primary goal of the USA: to take control of the Ukraine to prevent Russia from becoming a new Soviet Union, regardless of what the EU might have to say about that. Of course, there were other secondary goals which I listed in June of this year (see here):

As a reminder, what were the US goals in the Ukraine: (in no particular order)

Sever the ties between Russia and the Ukraine

Put a russophobic NATO puppet regime in power in Kiev

Boot the Russians out of Crimea

Turn Crimea into a unsinkable US/NATO aircraft carrier

Create a Cold War v2 in Europe

Further devastate the EU economies

Secure the EU's status as "US protectorate/colony"

Castrate once and for all EU foreign policies

Politically isolate Russia

Maintain the worldwide dominance of the US dollar

Justify huge military/security budgets

I have color-coded objectives these objectives into the following categories:

At first glance, this is a clear success for the USA: from 1 achieved to 6 with the same number of "failed" is very good for such a short period of time. However, a closer look will reveal something crucial: all the successes of the USA were achieved at the expense of the EU and none against Russia. Not only that, but the USA has failed in its main goal: to prevent Russia from becoming a superpower, primarily because the US policy was based on a hugely mistaken assumption: that Russia needed the Ukraine to become a superpower again. This monumental miscalculation also resulted in another very bad fact for the USA: the dollar is still very much threatened, more so than a year ago in fact.

This is so important that I will repeat it again: the AngloZionist Empire predicated its entire Ukrainian strategy on a completely wrong assumption: that Russia "needed" the Ukraine. Russia does not, and she knows that. As we shall see later, a lot of the key events of this year are a direct result of this huge miscalculation.

The US is now facing a paradox: "victory" in the Ukraine, "victory" in Europe, but failure to stop a rapidly rising Russia. Worse, these "victories" came at a very high price which included creating tensions inside the EU, threatening the future of the US shale gas industry, alienating many countries at the UN, being deeply involved with a Nazi regime, becoming the prime suspect in the shooting down of MH17 and paying the costs for an artificially low price of gold. But the single worst consequence of the US foreign policy in the Ukraine has been the establishment of a joint Russian-Chinese strategic alliance clearly directed against the United States (more about that later).

Can the US stay the course next year? That is hard to predict but I would say that in terms of direction the US policy will be more of the same. It is the magnitude (in the sense of will/energy to pursue) of this policy which is dubious. Traditionally, US policies are typically very intensive in the short term, but lack the staying power to see them through in the long term and there is no reason to believe that this case will be different. Furthermore, the US foreign policy establishment is probably simply unable to imagine a different approach: the United States do not really have a real foreign policy, rather they issue orders and directives to their vassal states and threats to all others. Finally, just as some banks are considered "too big to fail" the US policy towards the Ukraine is "too crazy to correct" thus any change of course would result in a major loss of face for an Empire which really cannot afford one more humiliating defeat right now. Still, when the political and financial costs of this policy become prohibitive, the US might have to consider the option to "declare victory and leave" (a time-honored US practice) and let the EU deal with the mess. There is also the very real risk of war with Russia which might give some US decision-makers pause. This is possible, but I am afraid that the US will try to play it's last card and trigger a full-scale war between the Ukraine and Russia.

Why would the US want to do that? Imagine this:A full scale war between Russia and the UkraineThe Ukrainians are told to attack Novorussia again. This time, they are more numerous, better equipped and their attack is fully supported, if not executed, by American "advisers" and retired US Army officers. Imagine further that the Ukrainians are given full intelligence support by US/NATO and that their progress is monitored 24/7 by US/NATO commanders who will help them in the conduct of the attack. Finally, let us assume that the Novorussians are overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude and speed of the attack and that Lugansk and Donetsk are rapidly surrounded. At this point the Russians will face a stark choice: either to abandon Novorussia to the Nazis or intervene. The first option would be catastrophic for Putin politically, and it would "solve" nothing: the Ukrainian junta, the US, EU, NATO have all clearly and repeatedly stated that they will never accept the reincorporation of Crimea into Russia. Furthermore, if the Russians let the Nazis overrun Novorussia, the next logical step for the Ukrainians will be to move south and repeat the very same operation in Crimea at which point Russia will not even have a choice and she will be forced to engage the Ukrainians to defend Crimea. Thus, if the Russians realize that the Ukrainians will push on no matter what, then Russia would be far better of engaging the Ukrainians over Novorussia then over Crimea.

If the Russians make the call that they have to openly intervene to save the Donbass from the Nazis, the Ukrainians don't stand a chance and everybody knows that. The Russians would very rapidly defeat the Ukrainian forces. Such a Russian move would be greeted by a massive media campaign denouncing the Russian "invasion" and Kiev would probably declare the Ukraine at war in which case the combat operations would probably spill over into other parts of the Ukraine or even Russia (the Ukrainians could, for example, try to strike Russians airports around Rostov or in Crimea). Whatever the Ukrainians decide, it is certain that they would have nothing to lose by escalating the situation further. In military terms, Russia can easily handle whatever the Ukrainians can try to throw at them. However I would not expect the Russians push to Kiev or the Dniper River, even if they could. They are most likely to do what they did to Saakashvili in 2008: protect the attacked region and only go as far as needed to disarm their enemy (in 2008 Russia could *easily* have occupied all of tiny Georgia, but she ended up withdrawing behind Ossetian and Abkhaz lines).

Such a Russian victory would be a crushing military defeat for Kiev, but not for the USA. The Americans would have their 'proof' of Russian imperial "aggression" and declare that the EU needs "protection" from the "Russian bear". The US would finally have the Cold War v2 it wants so badly, the EU politicians would play along, just to terrify their own population, and a "wonderful" arms race and a situation of extreme tension would pit all of Europe against Russia for a long, long time. Even for the junta in Kiev a military defeat might be a wonderful opportunity to blame it all on Russia and a way to get the population to rally against the "aggressor". Such a war between Russia and the Ukraine could also justify the introduction of martial law and a massive and vicious crackdown against "Russian agents" (i.e. any opposition) who would be designated as "saboteurs" and responsible for the inevitable Ukrainian defeat.

In the Ukraine and in Russia there is this black-humor joke which says that "the USA will fight Russia down to the last Ukrainian" and this is exactly what might happen as this option offers a lot of major advantages for the USA. For one thing, it is a win-win proposition: either the Ukrainians re-take Novorussia and then the very same plan can be repeated in Crimea, or they are defeated by Russia, in which case the resulting crisis offers huge benefits for US imperial ambitions.

Now let's look at the options for the Ukrainian junta.2 - The Ukrainian Junta

For the Nazi regime currently in power things are not going well and unless something changes they are headed for disaster: Crimea is gone, the Donbass is slowly but surely building up its instruments of statehood, the economy is basically dead and the "holes in the dam" harder and harder to plug. An explosion of popular unrest is inevitable. Worse, there are exactly *zero* future prospects for the Ukrainian economy and an official default is quasi inevitable. So what can the junta do?

Here it is crucial to remember that no Ukrainian politician has any real power, not even Poroshenko, Iatseniuk or Turchinov. The real rulers of the Ukraine are the US ambassador and the Kiev CIA station chief. These are the people who literally administer the Nazi junta on behalf of the US deep state and its imperial interests. As for the Ukrainian members of the junta, they all perfectly understand that their future is 100% dependent on being a faithful servant of the AngloZionist Empire. They all understand that they came to power by means of an completely illegal coup, that the elections they organized this year were a total farce and that they will soon have to use repressive measures against their own population just to stay in power. Last but not least, these are the folks who not only used chemical munitions, cluster bombs and even ballistic missiles against their own people, but who also send their own armed forces to be slaughtered in useless and criminally irresponsible "surprises" ordered by Poroshenko (the attempt to encircle Novorussia and to cut it off from the Russian border). We are talking about hardened war criminals here, people with no conscience whatsoever, sociopaths with a total lack of any moral compass. These are the folks who spoke a "barbecue of insects" in Odessa when 100+ people were tortured to death or burned alive and who giggled about shooting down the wrong place about MH-17 (Kolomoisky video). In fact, they are currently engaged in a racist hate-campaign.

Check out these posters which were recently shown in Kiev as part of a competition of patriotic posters. If a picture is worth one thousand words, just glancing at these few will tell you all you need to know about the wordview of the Nazi junta: (note: I translated the meaning of the slogans)

Russians don't get to speak

All together we will stop Russian terrorism

God's speaks through the people's voice

Fuck off Eurasian bastard!

May each slave wake up in a coffin

Getting a Russian passport makes you a Eurasian faggot

Don't pass by - kill!

I have to explain the last one: what you see is a "Colorado beetle" (Leptinotarsa decemlineata) which has colors similar to the ones seen on the Russian Saint George Ribbon. In other words, this poster says that if you pass by a Russian you should kill him. Notice the other themes: the Maidan was God's voice, the Russians are "Eurasians" who are beasts who should have no right, not even the right to speak or live. This is exactly the same propaganda style as used by Hitler against Jews and we all know how this ended (yet again another proof that to refer to the junta as "Nazi" is perfectly justified).

But there is much more then just words to pay attention to.

The Ukrainian budget has finally been adopted by the Rada. It can be summarized as such: less services, more taxes and everything for the military and security services (3% of the GDP for the former, 2% for the latter). For a country which is essentially bankrupt this is a huge effort. Not only that, but the junta has also announced that it will execute another mobilization next year (the 4th one in less than one year!!). Now ask yourself a basic question: could such a truly titanic effort have been made without some very real expectations of a "return on investment"? When you see a regime stirring up racial hatred against part of its own population and against a neighboring country while putting all of its tiny and much needed resources towards preparations for war - is that not a surefire sign that a war in imminent?

As a former military analyst myself I can tell you that by now the Russian intelligence community's "indicators and warnings" should be "flashing red" and that in all likelihood Russia is already preparing for war (more about Russia later). But before we look at the Russian position, we need to look into the situation of Novorussia.3 - The Novorussians (DNR+LNR)

The Novorussians are finishing the year in which they have achieved an absolutely amazing feat: from literally being *nothing* they spontaneously got together to stand up against the Nazi junta and they prevailed even with the entire Ukrainian military was launched at them. It is hard to believe that just 12 months ago the Donbass only meekly requested some language rights and some local autonomy or that earlier this year very almost nobody predicted that the Donbass would rise up and defeat the junta's death squads. And yet this miracle happened. How much did Russia really help? I would argue that not that much at all.

Initially, the Russian move to protect Crimea and the subsequent resolution of the Council of the Federation to allow Putin to use military power to protect the Russian minority in the Ukraine definitely played a key role in the first seizure of state buildings in Slaviansk and other town. Furthermore, Strelkov apparently believed that if he held on long enough the Russian armed forces would come and relieve the exhausted Novorussian militias. It never happened.

There is no doubt whatsoever that this apparent Russian "zag" left a lot of bad feelings in Novorussia and the theory that the Kremlin is about to "sell out" Novorussia is still discussed not only in the Russian blogosphere, but even on Russian TV (including yesterday on the most famous weekly talk show "Sunday evening with Vladimir Soloviev). Here is how this version goes: Putin is inherently weak and tries in vain to appease the West while Russian oligarchs are making a behind the scenes deal with their Ukrainian counterparts. Truth be told, this version is plausible, even if incorrect. The Kremlin's policy towards the West sure does look like appeasement while Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs have tried to arrange deals whether with or without the knowledge of the Russian government.

Any model is valid as long as it helps to explain the observed reality and this "Kremlin sells out Novorussia" does explain a lot. But it fails in many crucial aspects:

It fails to explain why following Strelkov's removal the Novorussians went on their highly successful offensive which pushed the Ukrainians as far as Mariupol.

It fails to explain the Russian Voentorg.

It fails to explain why the Russian government has done nothing to stop the volunteers and supplies coming from Russia.

It fails to explain why Russia would provide full informational support for a region and it's leaders if she intended to trade it away.

But most importantly this theory is completely out-of-character if we look not only at what Putin says and writes, but at his entire political career. Simply put, there is nobody on this planet which has done more to oppose the AngloZionist Empire than Vladimir Putin. I think that the hysterical and vicious demonization campaign against him in the western media is the best proof of that. I shall give my own explanation for the Russian zig-zags towards the West and the Ukrainian war in the next section, but so far let's just state that it created a lot of bad blood and anxiety amongst the Novorussians, including several of their field commanders.

For a while we witness the short lived but strong development of a "let's not stop before we win" party. These are the folks who advocated at the very least liberating Slaviansk and Mariupol and who were absolutely disgusted when Russia clearly ordered the Novorussians to stop and pull back. This party of what I could also call "let the strength of arms decide" has clearly lost as one after the other the top Novorussian commanders accepted, however bitterly, the Kremlin's demands. Some gave their strong and total support to Putin (Givi, Motorola, Bezler) while others gave a more reluctant acceptance of the fait accompli (Mozgovoi, Strelkov).

I won't even bother discussing the "shoulda, coulda, woulda" about whether the Novorussians could have freed Mariupol, Slaviansk or other cities. What is important here is something else: Novorussia and Russia have different priorities, different goals, different interests and if the two sides disagree, the bigger one - Russia - imposes her will. In other words, the Novorussians simply cannot fight the Nazi death squads and try to politically prevail against Putin in the court of Russian public opinion. They tried, and they failed.

So what's next?

The sad reality for the Novorussians is that they are stuck in the middle of a much bigger war and that what they see as "their" war is but a minor skirmish for the big players. Yes, the future of Novorussia is crucial to Russia, but it is not enough. Russia simply cannot live with a situation where a Ukrainian-Nazi equivalent of ISIS in Iraq remains in power in Kiev, regardless of who is in power in Novorussia (I would argue that neither can Novorussia, but that is an argument I made elsewhere already). Clearly the Kremlin analysts made the call that while Novorussia should be protected from the Ukrainian Nazis it should not be allowed to fight an open-ended war to free all of Novorussia or, even less so, the entire Ukraine (I happen to agree with this conclusion, but that is immaterial for this discussion).

For a while I was under the impression that Strelkov might become a "spokesman for Novorussia" in Russia, but that clearly did not happen (for whatever reason). In fact, right now there is no such ambassador or spokesman for Novorussia in Russia, nobody to make the Novorussian case in front of the Russian public opinion. I don't think that this is a good thing, but that is the reality.

As a result, the Novorussians are basically stuck. They have to prepare for the almost inevitable Ukrainian assault and pray that they will have the strength to push it back. Should they fail, they will have no other option than to pray for a Russian intervention which, considering the undeniable Russian zigs-zags in this matter, will not appear certain to all. This is a bad situation for the Novorussians, but they have no other options. Putin has successfully imposed his will on the Novorussians and now their future depends on him, for better or for worse.4 - Russia

So far Russia stands undefeated by the AngloZionist empire, but she is far from having prevailed either. In fact, Russia is waging a much bigger war or, more accurately, a number of much bigger wars.

First, Russia is trying to survive the attempt by the AngloZionist Empire to economically blockade her.

Second, in order to survive that blockade, Russia is trying to reform her economy to make it less dependent on the export of raw materials, more autonomous and connected to new partners, especially in Asia and Latin America.

Third, Russia is trying to de-fang the Empire by pulling herself out from the dollar and the US/UK controlled international financial system.

Fourth, Russia is trying to prevent the USA from permanently installing a russophobic Nazi regime in power.

Fifth, Russia is preparing for both a major war in the Ukraine and a full scale US/NATO attack on Russia.

It is important to stress here that point #5 does not mean that the Kremlin has come to the conclusion that a full-scale war with the Empire is inevitable. That only means that the Kremlin has decided that such a war is possible, even if most unlikely. You think I am exaggerating?

Let me show you two videos. One a commentary by the most senior journalist in Russia - Dimitri Kiselev - while the other one is a video report shown to President Putin at the end of the year by the Ministry of Defense during a conference on the status of the Russian military and later posted on the Ministry of Defenses' website.

First the political context:

And
second, the military's preparations for war:

Combine
the two and you will clearly see that a) nobody in Russia has any
illusions about what the Empire really wants (submit Russia) or about
the tools the Empire is willing to use (full scale war). And to
leave no doubt in anybody's mind, Russia has also revised her 2010
military doctrine to designate NATO expansion eastwards by name as
the bigger threat to Russia and to restate that Russia reserves the
right to use nuclear weapons if her conventional forces fail to
protect her.

I would, however, argue that
the biggest threat for Russia is internal, not external.
Nothing is more dangerous for the future of Russia then what I call
the "Atlantic Integrationists" and which Putin even called
the "5th column". And make no mistake here, we are
not talking about Khodorkovsy in New York or Navalnii in the streets
of Moscow. We are talking about powerful, rich, influential
people who for decades (since Gorbachev's times, or even before) have
infiltrated all the levels of government and who today are even in
the government of Prime Minister Medvedev. True, these
pro-AngloZionist 5th columnists have suffered a series of setbacks
and they have been weakened by Putin's relentless assault on their
power, but what does "weaker" really mean in our context?
According to Mikhail Khazin the Eurasian Sovereignists and the
Atlantic Integrationists are now roughly at 50/50 in terms of power.
That's right, Putin is far from having total control of Russia and he
is in fact locked into a war for survival against a formidable foe
who will try to capitalize on every setback Russia suffers,
especially in her economy. Putin knows that and he is therefore
in a race against time to de-couple Russia from the economic and
financial mechanisms which make it possible for the AngloZionists to
hurt Russia.

How much does this 5th column account for the
apparent zig-zags and apparent appeasement of the West by Russia?

I
honestly don't know. Neither does anybody else who is not a
true Kremlin insider. In some cases, such as the Minsk
agreements, I think that this apparent "zag" was an true
expression of Russian political goals. But when I see that
Russia is selling coal to the Ukraine on credit (?!)
I can only conclude that this is a case of sabotage of Russian
national interests. But we will never know for sure. All
we can do is to accept that Russia is like a ship or aircraft which
is generally holding a specific course, but which regularly zig-zags
on the way because the folks in the cockpit are fighting for the
control of the helm. In practical terms this means that next
year Russia will mostly stay the course. Why? Because
time is on Russia's side. For Russia every month, week or day
which can delay an overt confrontation with the Ukraine or the West
is one day won for preparation internal reform. It is also one
more day for the junta in Kiev to slide down one further notch, for
the EU economies to carry the full impact of anti-Russian sanctions
and for the US to suffer the political consequences of their
arrogant, irresponsible and generally unpopular imperial
policies.

The single most important political
development for Russia is the Russian-Chinese Strategic Alliance
(RCSA) which fundamentally changes the entire strategic posture of
Russia. I will discuss this tectonic shift in world politics
further below, but right now I want to the position of the EU.5
- The EU

2014
was truly a historical year for the EU marked by the wholesale and
abject surrender of the EU political leaders to the United States.
From the EU guaranteed agreement between the opposition and
Yanokovich which was broken the very next day, the Victoria Nuland's
famous words which were never challenged, to the introduction of
sanctions the day after the signing of the Minsk agreement, to the
political and economic seppuku against
South Stream, to the shameful silence and even collaboration with the
murderers of the passengers of MH17 - the EU has proven to all that
it is only a spineless colony of the AngloZionist Empire and that the
EU and the Ukraine are equally subservient puppets of the United
States. There is no EU to speak of. It is a US controlled
territory whose administration is entrusted to Germany to whose power
all the EU nations have bowed. And in this system, countries
such as Poland or Lithuania have a special role: to lead the EU in
subservience to the USA.

From the latest statements of Putin
and Lavrov it is pretty clear that they fully share Victoria Nulands
opinion of the EU which they now seem consider as some kind of
"geopolitical Conchita Wurst" not worthy of any respect or
credibility.

Truly, the EU and its Eurobureaucratic elites
have passed a point of no return. If in the past they could
still pretend like the EU project was making the EU stronger and that
in maintained the sovereignty of its member, now this kind of
statement will only be met with a disgusted laughter. As a
system the EU has committed suicide and nothing can be further
expected of it until it collapses. The riots which have taken
place in almost every country of western Europe are a clear sign that
most Europeans are either fed-up or desperate or both. In a
way, we could say that the EU is run by a
Soviet-style nomenklatura which
lives in complete detachment from the rest of the European people in
a kind of US-built ivory tower high above the common people.
Exactly the kind of situation which results in bloody uprisings and
revolutions. I am personally convinced that an explosion of
anger could happen anytime, especially in the EU countries bordering
the Mediterranean. But unlike the Russians, the Europeans
prefer their revolution in the warm weather. So maybe next
summer?6
-NATO

The
Russians have now officially declared that the NATO expansion into
the east was the biggest threat for Russia. And yet I will make the
case that NATO is a paper tiger, at least in military terms and that
NATO simply does not have what it takes to attack Russia (for my
reasons for stating that, please see here).
I recently
explained that on the blog, and I think that it is worth
repeating this once more today:

One
more thing: the Russians are most definitely upset about the very
aggressive NATO stance because they - correctly - interpret it as a
sign of hostility. But, contrary to what a lot of bloggers say, the
Russians have no fear of the military threat posed by NATO. Their
reaction to the latest NATO moves (new bases and personnel in Central
Europe, more spending, etc.) is to denounce it as provocative, but
Russian officials all insist that Russia can handle the military
threat. As one Russian deputy said "5 rapid reaction
diversionary groups is a problem we can solve with one missile".
A simplistic but basically correct formula. Putin said the very same
thing when he clearly spelled out that in case of a massive
conventional attack by "anybody" Russia would engage
tactical nukes. In fact, if NATO goes ahead with its stupid plan to
deploy forces in Poland and/or the Baltics I expect Russia with
withdraw from the IRNF Treaty
and deploy advanced successors to the famous RSD-10 (SS-20).
As I mentioned before, the decision to double the size of the Russian
Airborne Forces and to upgrade the elite 45th Special Designation
Airborne Regiment to full brigade-size has already been taken anyway.
You could say that Russia preempted the creation of the 10'000 strong
NATO force by bringing
her own mobile (airborne) forces from 36'000 to 72'000.

This
is typical Putin. While NATO announces with fanfare and
fireworks that NATO will create a special rapid reaction "spearhead"
force of 10'000,
Putin quietly doubles the
size of the Russian Airborne Forces to 72'000.
And, believe me, the battle hardened Russian Airborne Forces are a
vastly more capable fighting force then the hedonistic and
demotivated multi-national (28 countries) Euroforce of 5'000
NATO is struggling hard to put together.
The US commanders fully understand that, and they also know that the
real purpose of NATO is not to attack Russia, but to maintain the US
control over Europe. As early as in 1949 the first NATO
Secretary General, Lord Ismay, candidly admitted that NATO's true
goal was "to
keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down"
(notice that in the typical russophobic way of the western elites,
Russians are considered as the source of the threat even though in
1949 a Georgian was at the helm of the Soviet Union and that Russians
had paid a much higher price in repressions then the non-Russian
ethnic groups).Little
has changed since, except that with the "Soviet threat"
gone NATO had to scramble to find a justification for itself and that
it now wants to find it in the "need to protect European
democracy from the resurgent Russian Bear". In other
words, the ideal situation for NATO is a crisis just one
notch below a
full-scale war. In case of a real, shooting, war against Russia
NATO will be crushed, but as long as NATO can *pretend* it is
defending Europe against Russia it is justifying its existence.
Hence the silly hunts for Russian ghost submarines, the
"interception" of Russian aircraft in international
airspace and the constant stream of dramatic statements that NATO
will never allow Russia to attack Poland or Lithuania (as if Russia
wanted to do that in the first place!).NATO
will continue doing exactly that: pretend like Russia was going to
attack Moldova next and that NATO must prevent that. The flow
of incendiary and even frankly irresponsible statements will
continue, NATO official will continue to deliver stark warnings to
Russia with all the required gravitas and the Empire's corporate
media will report them as if they had a factual connection to
reality. Keeping the Russians out, the German down and the
Americans in will be an easy mission since the Russians don't want
in, the Germans have totally surrendered along the rest of Europe,
and the Americans are already fully in charge.7
- ChinaIt
is amazing for me to see that most observers and analysts have
apparently failed to realize that China is now a key actor in the
Ukrainian war. Anybody doubting this claim should read
the Vineyard
of the Saker White Paper written
by Larchmonter 445 entitled The
Russia-China Double Helix.
To make a long story short, China and Russia have decided to keep
their own "hands" (their armed forces) and their own
"heads" (their political leadership) but to share a common
"torso" (their economies, natural and human resources,
their industrial and technological know-how and everything else which
allows a society to prosper). I call this the Russia-China
Strategic Alliance (RCSA) but really it is something even bigger then
that - it is a long term decision to share a common fate and to take
the risk to become inseparable. An alliance, a treaty, can be
broken or withdrawn from. But once your "internal organs"
are shared with another entity you are bound together, for better or
for worse. What has happened is truly a tectonic geopolitical
shift: two empires have decided to join together while remaining
sovereign and independent. To my knowledge this has never
happened in history and Putin and Xi have already changed the course
of history by this monumental decision.The
two countries are ideal symbionts: everything one has the other needs
and vice versa. China needs Russian raw materials, especially
energy, Russian high technology (aerospace, engines, power plants,
etc.) and Russian armaments (everything from the rifle bullet to the
ICBM). Russia needs two things from China: money and "Walmart"
(consumer goods). Together these two giants not only have
immense currency resources but the biggest stash of physical gold on
the planet. And, to make things even better, Russia and China
are the undisputed leaders of BRICS and SCO. Taken
together these two countries are already far more powerful than the
AngloZionist Empire and
that trend will only grow.

A
Russian, a Russian Asian and a Chinese solider

Of
course, China will not intervene militarily in the Ukraine.
Remember - each country keeps its own "hands" so long as
the other is not directly threatened. But in the Pacific
Russian and Chinese navies are already training together and even
creating joint command centers.In
the Ukraine, China still play a crucial role by providing Russia will
all the economic aid needed to overcome the western sanctions and
restructure the Russian economy. The Chinese have
now officially
declared that.
It is both ironic and beautiful that after decades of Russian fears
that China might try to conquer Siberia (even Solzhenitsyn shared
these fears) Putin and Xi have found a much more intelligent solution
- Russia will sell Siberia's riches to China while China will protect
Russia from the West. Again, this is truly a historic
development whose importance cannot be overstated.Adding
up all these vectorsSo
let's add it all up now. In summary:The
USA now
has no other option then to press on their assault on Russia because
what is at stake is quite literally the future of the AngloZionist
Empire and, therefore, the future of our planet. China uniting
with Russia is definitely bad news, but it is too late for the USA to
back down now or even to change course. The Americans probably
realize that they have fired their best shots already and that the
Ukrainian junta is in deep trouble and that the collapse of their
Nazi "Banderastan" is just a matter of time. In other
words, the Empire is now in a "use them or lose them"
situation and "fighting Russia down to the last Ukrainian"
is now the best option for the US 1%ers.The
Ukrainian Junta members
are basically in the same situation as the USA: they must realize
that their days are numbered and that their best chance is to do the
US bidding and trigger a huge crisis.The
Novorussians are
stuck: they have to do whatever the Kremlin wants them to do, hope
for the best, prepare for the worst and courageously face anything in
the middle.Russia needs
to avoid an open confrontation with the West for as long as
possible.TheEU will
remain as irrelevant and pathetic as ever.NATO will
play a dangerous game of brinkmanship trying to create as much
tensions as possible without triggering an actual
conflict.China will
do whatever it takes to protect Russia from the economic war waged
against her.ConclusionsFrom
the above I conclude that unless some major development substantially
alters the current dynamic the resulting vector clearly points at the
inevitability of a full-scale war between Russia and the Ukraine
along the scenario outlined above ("A full scale war between
Russia and the Ukraine"). There is no reason whatsoever to
expect the US, the Nazi junta, NATO or the EU to begin acting in a
responsible or constructive manner. For these reasons, Russia
will be alone in trying to avoid an intervention the Donbass and the
inevitable war with the Ukraine following it. The
best way for Russia to achieve this goal is to arm Novorussia to the
teeth, to provide much more humanitarian support then now, to try
re-launch as much of the Novorussian economy as possible (preferably
by investments and contracts, not just grants) and generally help to
make Novorussia as viable as possible under the current conditions.
If the Novorussian could repeat their amazing feat once more
and repel or,
even better, deter the
future Ukrainian attack this would be a crushing defeat not only for
the junta in Kiev, but also for all its supporters in the
AngloZionist Empire.
The "equation" is simple: if Novorussia can stand up to the
Ukrainians and Russia is not forced to intervene the Nazi regime in
Kiev is finished along with the entire Neocon plan against Russia.
If Russia is forced to intervene, Novorussia will be saved and the
junta finished, but the Neocons plan will have succeeded and Russia
will suffer a major geostrategic setbackRussia
desperately needs more time and I expect the Russian diplomacy to try
every possible delaying tactic imaginable to buy as much time as
possible before the inevitable Ukrainian attack on Novorussia.
I am even willing to consider that the recent sale (really, a gift)
of coal to Kiev might be such a delaying tactic, I don't know.
What is clear for me that most
of these delaying tactics will look like "appeasement" to
the external observer and that, in the end, our perception of these
moves will depend on our assumptions and, basically, our take on the
person of Vladimir Putin. I might be wrong, but I personally
trust him and short of very strong evidence I will never believe that
he will "sell out" Novorussia or anybody else in the
Ukraine. Not only do I believe that he is way too smart to do
such a stupid and self-defeating thing, but I have also come to the
conclusion that he is a highly principled person who will never
betray the people he took an oath to defend.My
very tentative "guesstimates"
for 2015:2014
has been a historic year and so will be 2015, if only because 2014
set a great deal of things in motion, but resolved none of them.
I have come to the conclusion that there is a 80% chance of a massive
Ukrainian attack on Novorussia next year, probably in the first part
of the year. My best guesstimate is that Novorussia will
probably be able to beat back this attack, albeit with great effort
and big losses. The Russian economy will continue to suffer and
appear to be sinking for the next six months or so at which point it
will gradually start reversing that trend. The EU economy will
enter into full and deep recession resulting in widespread social
unrest. As for the USA, they probably will be able to pretend
like nothing big, not big disaster, is happening, if only thanks to
the money printing machine and the best propaganda machine in
history. What the US will be unable to do is to prevent the
gradual but inexorable de-dollarization of more and more of the world
economy, lead by China and Russia. The true and final collapse
of the AngloZionist Empire is inevitable, but not for the next couple
of years.I
wish you all the very best for 2015 and, above all, I wish you
peace.May
God protect us all from war!The
Saker